The 9/11 Conspiracy - Page 8 - Fandom Forums
Fandom Forums



Go Back   Fandom Forums > Indepth Interests > Debates Section > Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy Theories Talk about your theories here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-14-2009, 06:11 PM   #106
Miburo
Deos Fortioribus Adesse
 
Miburo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,679 Times in 5,440 Posts
Miburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Wow, this is retarded. Someone really likes Loose Change.

Evidence. Post evidence. The burden of proof is on you, since you're the one claiming that the government did it. That's how shit works. And don't expect people to just take your word on outlandish claims like "there was no planes durr hurr" either. Show that it was just fake videos, and that people on that were supposedly on the plane didn't die, etc.
Miburo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post:
Mal (10-14-2009), Playa (10-15-2009), zer0systm (10-14-2009)


Old 10-14-2009, 10:49 PM   #107
SimonCP
The Truthseeker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 25
Thanks: 2
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
SimonCP is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Found a great page that debunks Maddox's 9/11 page:
http://debunking-maddox.blogspot.com/

Quote:
Evidence. Post evidence. The burden of proof is on you, since you're the one claiming that the government did it. That's how shit works. And don't expect people to just take your word on outlandish claims like "there was no planes durr hurr" either. Show that it was just fake videos, and that people on that were supposedly on the plane didn't die, etc.
Thanks.

Pentagon: Evidence Of No Airplane

-There was no sign of any credible identifiable airplane wreckage in the wide shots of the lawn in front of the building or of the shots inside the building. Witnesses both inside and outside made remarks about how little was left. While we can expect some wreckage to disintegrate, a plane crash does leave a plane.
Pic: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/imag...eep_aerial.jpg
Pic: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/imag...ght_aerial.jpg
Pic: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/imag...oleprofile.jpg
Article: http://www.naualumni.com/News/News.cfm?ID=613&c=4

-The tail section of a Boeing 757 jetliner is 44ft high, yet there is no sign of any impact damage on the floors above the hole and no sign of tail section outside of the building. It is impossible for a 44ft tall, knife-like piece of metal to slam into the Pentagon wall at 530 mph on it's sharp end and not leave a mark.
Pic: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/imag...pcctrspray.jpg
Analysis: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/imag...lding/tail.jpg

-The entry hole is square-shaped, yet a Boeing 757's cockpit is circular. This hole is entirely inconsistent with the shape of the airplane's fuselage.
Pic: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/imag...rlongspray.jpg

-To create the hole we see in the building, the Boeing would have had to be flying very low. However, the engines hang below the fuselage and would have scratched the lawn. Even if, somehow, they didn't, the lawn would have been visibly disturbed by the turbulence/speed of the speeding aircraft. Also, the lawn would have been completely toasted by the explosion. However, the lawn is bizarrely unscathed.
Pic: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/imag...awn/pent04.jpg

-The exit hole was a perfectly circular hole in the C ring. It is impossible for the very fragile nosecone of an airplane (Birds can pierce it) to fly that far through the building. In fact, the end of it's journey would likely have been just after impacting the first ring, which was renovated and reinforced. It is simply not possible for it to have gone as far as the C ring. A Boeing could not have caused the exit hole and, thus, not the damage.
Pic: http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/k..._Exit_Hole.jpg
Analysis: http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/attachm...yhRhbAjMZx.jpg

-The majority of the witnesses interviewed by the news in the immediate aftermath heard an explosion, but no plane. Some reported that the explosion was bomb-like, and others said that they heard others screaming "Bomb!". One witness (Don Perkal) said that he was sure a bomb had gone off because he could smell the cordite. Another witness (Gilah Goldsmith) confirmed that she smelled "cordite or gun smoke". Omar Campo, Steven Gerard, Steve Patterson, Deborah Khavkin, Don Wright, and Michael Kelly reported that a smaller aircraft had hit the building. Lon Rains (SpaceNews) said she was "convinced it was a missile". Two witnesses heard by David Edwards shouted "A missile hit the Pentagon! We saw it!". Another witness, Steve Riskus, told Chris Bollyn that the airplane flew over him, yet he didn't hear much noise -- this was confirmed by others. The reports of "not much noise" indicate that any aircraft involved in the attack would have had to have been a quieter drone, like a Predator or Global Hawk -- this is significant with the reports of a smaller aircraft.

-A Boeing 757 is 155 ft long -- that's twice the height of the Pentagon. Why can't we see it in the "plane" frame of the five frames 'leaked' by the DOD.
Pic: http://graphics.boston.com/news/pack.../pentagon1.jpg

Pennsylvania: Evidence Of No Airplane

-Despite the fact that we're dealing with an airplane crashing into a field, there is no airplane to see. All we have is what looks to be an empty hole. This is inconceivable and impossible, had a 757 jet crashed here.
Pic: http://gfx.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2002..._crash_sak.jpg
Pic: http://killtown.911review.org/images...rial_msnbc.jpg

-Flight 93 officially had 5,500 gallons of fuel when it crashed, yet there is only a small amount of smoke and heat damage in the crater. In fact, grass around the rim of the crater is unburnt. A photographer at the scene said that he didn't smell any jet fuel in the area. So, if the jet fuel didn't burn up and wasn't in the area, then where was it? Underground? Nope -- the EPA tested the groundwater for contamination -- none.
Pic: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/images...llery/9301.jpg
Pic: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/00037r.jpg

-Susan McElwain reports that the aircraft she saw did not have wings and was a missile or a UAV.
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2008/07...t-talking.html

-The county coroner couldn't find any bodies in the crater, and said: "It’s as if the plane had stopped and let the passengers off before it crashed." -- Please.
http://911review.org/Wiki/Flight93Somerset.shtml

-The crater in the ground was not deep or large enough to account for the jumbo jet that allegedly flew into it.
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight93.html#WCPO

For more information on Shanksville, check out the Killtown blog:
http://killtown.blogspot.com/search/label/Shanksville

WTC: Evidence Of No Planes

-The holes in the Towers are cookie-cutter shaped airplane holes, yet there is no wreckage in the holes or on the ground below the holes. This indicates that the entire airplane would have had to go through the building without any parts breaking off. Since this is impossible, we can conclude that there was no airplane. Buildings do not swallow planes.
Pic/Analysis: http://www.cwporter.com/wtcnorth767hole.jpg

-All of the available videos showing the airplane image entering the building show it flying through as if it's a ghost going through a wall. No deceleration/slowing, no breaking, no crumpling -- nothing. It just goes entirely in. Experts such as former aerospace engineer Joseph Keith tell us that this is impossible. Keith says "The video is phony because airplanes don't meld into buildings, they crash against them!". This was confirmed by MIT Engineer Jeff King, who also says that this penetration was impossible.
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html#butterplanes
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?pag...page1=joes_law

-We are told that the airplanes hitting the Towers were traveling at speeds over 500 mph. Experts and the Boeing company have confirmed that there is absolutely impossible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtDa7B_LG10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrCqlr026W0

-The majority of witnesses on the ground did not hear/see airplanes.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?pag...nal_no_planers

========

Here's a documentary that you might want to watch:
http://septemberclues.info/

In the two parts (Second half is on the website -- check top of screen), we see the 9/11 News Footage completely and totally deconstructed and exposed. Quite simply, the man behind the video makes quite a solid case that the videos we all saw over and over again were fake.
__________________




It's Gon Rain!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7UBlZcZSE0

Truth about 9/11
The attacks were an 'inside job': http://killtown.911review.org/
The TV footage is fake: http://www.septemberclues.info/
The Military used hi-tech weapons to destroy the Towers: http://drjudywood.com/
SimonCP is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SimonCP For This Useful Post:
Azumi (10-19-2009)
Old 10-14-2009, 11:04 PM   #108
zer0systm
Antagonist
 
zer0systm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: West. Australia
Age: 25
Posts: 1,012
Thanks: 4,274
Thanked 8,057 Times in 2,875 Posts
zer0systm is just really nicezer0systm is just really nicezer0systm is just really nicezer0systm is just really nicezer0systm is just really nicezer0systm is just really nicezer0systm is just really nice
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Quote:
Originally Posted by imdb
David Angell was a multiple Emmy Award winner as the creator/executive producer, along with Peter Casey and David Lee, of the hit comedy series Frasier.

On September 11, 2001, David Angell and his wife Lynn were aboard one of the two planes under terrorist control that crashed into the World Trade Center towers, causing them to collapse.
This is just a quick excert from the biography of David Angell, the reason i am posting this here is to do away with your "no plane" claims this man was a celebrity, assuming his dissapearance is somewhat coincidental from the face of the earth when he was suposedly on one of the 9/11 flights is just moronic, the real means behind me posting this bio is to get the idea across that, every single person one those aeroplanes were people with background, they had a history, family, friends, it's a bit inconceivable that everyone who was on those flights just up and took off the day of those crashes.
__________________
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Last edited by zer0systm; 10-14-2009 at 11:05 PM.
zer0systm is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to zer0systm For This Useful Post:
Miburo (10-14-2009)
Old 10-14-2009, 11:54 PM   #109
Mal
Scotch
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 12,722
Thanked 10,818 Times in 3,844 Posts
Mal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimonCP View Post
-We are told that the airplanes hitting the Towers were traveling at speeds over 500 mph. Experts and the Boeing company have confirmed that there is absolutely impossible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtDa7B_LG10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrCqlr026W0
Sure. 767s aren't capable of cruising at 500+mph at that altitude, but they didn't have to cruise, they just had to descend (aerodynamic body + ~300,000lbs. + Gravity = fast ) and hit a building.
If you're planning on crashing your plane, I don't think you're going to be worrying about it "shaking itself apart" after a while.
Mal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mal For This Useful Post:
Miburo (10-15-2009), zer0systm (10-15-2009)
Old 10-15-2009, 12:37 AM   #110
Miburo
Deos Fortioribus Adesse
 
Miburo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,679 Times in 5,440 Posts
Miburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

All the "evidence" posted is retarded. Most of the links are just pictures of the wrecks. Saying "hurr hurr lyke a plane wouldn't do that" doesn't prove shit. Show what happened to the planes full of people that went missing if they weren't crashed into shit. You know, actual proof. Not "durr there should have been more smoke OMG THERE WAS NO PLANE LOLOLOL"

People need to learn to fucking think things out, seriously. Just think about it. What makes more sense? There was no planes and it was all made up, or the conspiracy theorists are wrong on this one? Think. Seriously. For fuck's sake.

Again. What happened to the passengers of those planes?
Miburo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post:
Mal (10-15-2009), zer0systm (10-15-2009)
Old 10-15-2009, 03:38 PM   #111
SimonCP
The Truthseeker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 25
Thanks: 2
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
SimonCP is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

zer0systm:

Quote:
This is just a quick excert from the biography of David Angell, the reason i am posting this here is to do away with your "no plane" claims this man was a celebrity, assuming his dissapearance is somewhat coincidental from the face of the earth when he was suposedly on one of the 9/11 flights is just moronic, the real means behind me posting this bio is to get the idea across that, every single person one those aeroplanes were people with background, they had a history, family, friends, it's a bit inconceivable that everyone who was on those flights just up and took off the day of those crashes.
The fact that these people exist does not mean that airplanes hit the Towers/Pentagon. In fact, as we examine the photographic/video evidence, it appears that the opposite is true. If I was a relative of Mr. Angell's, I'd be asking the government where the planes really went, and why my relative's plane (Flight 11) was flying that day, despite the fact that it wasn't scheduled?

By the way, Angell has an interesting background. After graduating from a private Catholic college, he joined the US Army, where he worked at the Pentagon until 1972. His brother, Kenneth, was the Roman Catholic Bishop of Vermont. If anyone has done any research into the forces controlling the US Military/US Government/US Intelligence, they'll usually come up with the answer that it's the Vatican that wields the power in the USA and the world. Angell has a background in the military, Pentagon, mainstream media, and has close ties to the Roman Catholic Church, which he was trained by and which he belonged to.

I am not making any accusations against anyone with my interest in Angell's connections, but it is interesting how many of the 9/11 passengers have very interesting connections to the US Military, the media, or the Vatican.

Quote:
Sure. 767s aren't capable of cruising at 500+mph at that altitude, but they didn't have to cruise, they just had to descend (aerodynamic body + ~300,000lbs. + Gravity = fast ) and hit a building.
You won't descend that fast relying only on gravity. MIT, NIST, the British Air Force, FEMA, and FAA have all made estimates on the speed that the plane was traveling while it approached the Towers. What do all of their estimates have in common? They are all above 500 MPH.

Quote:
If you're planning on crashing your plane, I don't think you're going to be worrying about it "shaking itself apart" after a while.
You would be very worried about this, as a plane that has shaken itself apart is a plane that is obviously not going to be going into the Towers.

Quote:
All the "evidence" posted is retarded. Most of the links are just pictures of the wrecks. Saying "hurr hurr lyke a plane wouldn't do that" doesn't prove shit. Show what happened to the planes full of people that went missing if they weren't crashed into shit. You know, actual proof. Not "durr there should have been more smoke OMG THERE WAS NO PLANE LOLOLOL"
-It's not my responsibility to say what happened to the planes full of people. That responsibility lies with the people who told us that the planes/people ended up crashing into the WTC/Pentagon/Shanksville in the first place! The government and the newsmedia.

-Yes, saying "a plane wouldn't do that" is proof. If the government says that an apple is on Table IE, yet a photo shows an orange on Table IE, but no apple, then it is evidence that there is no apple. Similarly, when photographic/video evidence shows that the scene is completely inconsistent with an airplane, then we have to doubt the plane story. When video evidence contains clear signs of fakery, we have to conclude that it was fake footage.

-Of course there should have been more smoke/heat damage in the crater. A person at the scene said they smelled no jet fuel in the area, the photos clearly show that the hole/grass was not severely burnt (Even when smaller plane crashes feature big fires/smoke-plumes), and EPA groundwater tests concluded that none of it was in the ground. Remember, we were told that the plane crashed with over 5000 gallons.

Quote:
People need to learn to fucking think things out, seriously. Just think about it. What makes more sense? There was no planes and it was all made up, or the conspiracy theorists are wrong on this one? Think. Seriously. For fuck's sake.
Instead of looking at it like that, I follow the evidence. Please check out September Clues. It clearly demonstrates evidence of video fakery.

Quote:
Again. What happened to the passengers of those planes?
Ask the people who lied to you about it -- the government.
__________________




It's Gon Rain!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7UBlZcZSE0

Truth about 9/11
The attacks were an 'inside job': http://killtown.911review.org/
The TV footage is fake: http://www.septemberclues.info/
The Military used hi-tech weapons to destroy the Towers: http://drjudywood.com/

Last edited by SimonCP; 10-15-2009 at 03:45 PM.
SimonCP is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SimonCP For This Useful Post:
Azumi (10-19-2009)
Old 10-15-2009, 04:01 PM   #112
mewmew
Fodder-nin
 
mewmew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Manila
Posts: 426
Thanks: 154
Thanked 196 Times in 118 Posts
mewmew is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

there were no planes? wow. so all media who covered the story is part of the conspiracy now eh? this is plain stupid... suddenly, all eye witness accounts, phone calls from the victims and media coverage of a plane crashing into the buildings lose credibility just to further this stupid conspiracy theory... another stupidity is when US throws out billions of dollars to research and create HITECH weaponry which will destroy their center of economy for what? to have more funds allocated into war. HAHAHA jokers nowadays... US didn't gain anything from that attack for Christ's sake. That attack fueled war, which fueled the economic meltdown, which caused more hardships for the people... generally, these theories are idiotic and is aimed only to breed distrust on the government.
__________________
mewmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 04:29 PM   #113
Miburo
Deos Fortioribus Adesse
 
Miburo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,679 Times in 5,440 Posts
Miburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimonCP View Post
-It's not my responsibility to say what happened to the planes full of people. That responsibility lies with the people who told us that the planes/people ended up crashing into the WTC/Pentagon/Shanksville in the first place! The government and the newsmedia.
Actually, it is your responsibility, since you're making the claim that they didn't hit the towers. Therefore those people and those planes must be somewhere. If I ask the media or the government what happened to the passengers on those planes then they'll say that they died in a plane crash. It's not the government's or the media's job to prove your claims. It's your job. That's how logic works.
Quote:
-Yes, saying "a plane wouldn't do that" is proof. If the government says that an apple is on Table IE, yet a photo shows an orange on Table IE, but no apple, then it is evidence that there is no apple. Similarly, when photographic/video evidence shows that the scene is completely inconsistent with an airplane, then we have to doubt the plane story. When video evidence contains clear signs of fakery, we have to conclude that it was fake footage.
No, it isn't. First off, your analogy is flawed since it doesn't represent what you're comparing it to. Saying an orange is an apple is entirely different than saying a crater wasn't caused by a plane. If you showed me a video of a missile hitting the towers and the government is saying that the missile is a plane, then your analogy would be accurate. I didn't see any pictures like that though.

Also, in logic, there are things called non sequiturs. It's when a conclusion doesn't follow the premises. Which is exactly what a lot of evidence consists of. Saying "people did not see planes," "there was no wreckage in the pictures that were taken," etc. simply do not directly support the conclusion: "There was no planes."

I know this is tough to understand if you're not well versed in logic, since they sorta look like they're supporting it. But they're not. Here's an analogy that will help:

-I eat fish raw from a raging river
-I live in the woods
-I'm covered in thick hair
Therefore, I am a bear.

Looks like those premises support the conclusion, yeah? Guess what? They don't. I'm just a really manly dude, not a bear. And that's with me giving you a huge benefit of the doubt and assuming all your premises are correct and not prone to error. Which they obviously aren't.
Quote:
-Of course there should have been more smoke/heat damage in the crater. A person at the scene said they smelled no jet fuel in the area, the photos clearly show that the hole/grass was not severely burnt (Even when smaller plane crashes feature big fires/smoke-plumes), and EPA groundwater tests concluded that none of it was in the ground. Remember, we were told that the plane crashed with over 5000 gallons.
So in conclusion, there was no plane lololololol. Read above.

There are lots of possible conclusions that could follow those premises. Someone or multiple people might be wrong or have wrong information. If they weren't plane crashes, then what were they? Where are the planes? And where are the passengers? Actual proof please, not speculation based on people grasping for straws.


Quote:
Instead of looking at it like that, I follow the evidence. Please check out September Clues. It clearly demonstrates evidence of video fakery.
No you don't. You try to, but it just leads you to a cliff edge. And beyond that is your conclusion. And you just jump right on over there.

And I googled september clues and found a bunch of debunkings for it too. Should I check those out as well? Nah, they're probably bullshit. = /

Quote:
Ask the people who lied to you about it -- the government.
No. I'm asking you since you're the one making claims here. I'm not even saying the government is being totally truthful about everything, or that all the media and government information was all correct. You're saying there was no plane crashes. You're saying we were lied to about what happened to these passengers. PROVE THAT. That's your job, don't pawn it off. Where are these passengers? They must be somewhere.
Miburo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post:
Mal (10-15-2009)
Old 10-15-2009, 05:43 PM   #114
SimonCP
The Truthseeker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 25
Thanks: 2
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
SimonCP is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Quote:
there were no planes? wow. so all media who covered the story is part of the conspiracy now eh? this is plain stupid...
No it isn't. Military-media cooperation has a long history in covert operations going back to the JFK Assassination in Dallas. At this point, an informed studenf of history cannot conclude that the mainstream newsmedia is anything more than a subsidiary of the military/intelligence propaganda machine.

Quote:
suddenly, all eye witness accounts,
I said earlier:


-The majority of witnesses on the ground did not hear/see airplanes.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?pag...nal_no_planers


Only after everyone had been shown fake videos over and over again, did people start "remembering" that the "object" they saw hit the building was an airplane.

Of the small percentage of witnesses who reported an airplane before the videos were pumped into everyone's face, most of them have newsmedia/military connections. The "on-site interviews" in New York reeked of being staged for the camera (I can provide evidence/examples of this).

Quote:
phone calls from the victims
The cell phone calls are fake. They could not have happened aboard the planes. Experiments have been done to prove conclusively that calls cannot be made from that kind of altitude using cell phones. A Canadian scientist named A.K. Dewdney tried it himself. See his amazing findings:
http://physics911.net/projectachilles

The altitude problem would be especially bad with a rural area like Pennsylvania, which is where Flight 93 supposedly crashed, and Flight 93 had the most supposed cell phone calls coming from it.

Furthermore, there are discrepancies with many of the calls.

-It's hard to believe that Todd "Let's Roll!" Beamer, the religious family man that he was, would spend the last moments of his life on the line with a Verizon operator, rather than with his pregnant wife. He also says that 27 passengers were sent to the back of the plane -- why would he use such an exact number? Did he count them?

-Mark Bingham called his mother and addressed himself as "Mark Bingham" (Full name with his mother??), then said that there were 3 hijackers aboard the plane -- officially, there were 4 on his plane!

-Tom Burnett told his wife that the hijackers were hitting targets all along the east coast, despite the fact that only the Towers had been hit. He also said that they were taking a vote on whether to take back the plane or not. Since the hijackers were keeping them prodded back, we're to believe that they took a vote without being heard by them?

-Sandy Bradshaw told her husband that her plane had been hijacked by three men with knives. None of the planes officially had three hijackers. She also said she was boiling pitchers of water. How the heck could she do that with the hijackers keeping everyone prodded back? They wouldn't notice her? And since when do airplanes have stove tops?

-Louis Nacke supposedly called from the plane and left a message on his wife's answering machine. Instead of saying anything, there was just a noise and a click. Are we to believe that Nacke simply dismissed this opportunity to say goodbye to his wife?

-CeeCee Lyles called her husband and said that there were three guys on her plane, though officially there were four. Lyles was a police officer, and thus, a trained observer. Her husband could here men in the background planning a counter-attack -- why couldn't the hijackers hear this if they were keeping them prodded back? Also, why does a voice say "You Did Great" in the background before Lyles shuts off her phone?

-Renee Ann May called her husband (Who works for Walter Reed Army Medical Center) and told him that there were six hijackers on her plane, yet officially, there were only 5.

-Betty Ong, a trained long-time flight attendant, first identified her plane (Flight 11) to Air Traffic Control as "Flight 12". She also remained calm, even though she said that they were spraying mace at them. You cannot speak in a calm voice if you are in an area where Mace is being sprayed. She gave the seat number of one of the hijackers, but it was a seat that none of them were sitting at. The man who was sitting in that seat, Daniel Lewin, was an elite Israeli military commando who spoke Arab.

-Barbara Olson allegedly called her husband with a cell phone, yet he says she called collect. Both of these explanations don't make any sense, since phone lines in that area were jammed (cellular and landlines).

-Madeline Sweeney, a longtime flight attendant, supposedly cried out "I see buildings! I see water! Oh my God!" when she saw New York City -- are we supposed to believe that an experienced flight attendant didn't recognize Manhattan?

Quote:
and media coverage of a plane crashing into the buildings lose credibility
Of course they do. They were very fake. Please check out September Clues:
http://septemberclues.info/

Quote:
just to further this stupid conspiracy theory...
No, just to further where the evidence leads us. If the evidence leads us to no planes, then it's leading us there because that's the truth, not because the evidence itself has some kind of "conspiracy-promoting" agenda.

Quote:
another stupidity is when US throws out billions of dollars to research and create HITECH weaponry which will destroy their center of economy for what?
Since the Twin Towers were hit early and the vast majority of the financial/trades folks were left unharmed, it was not that big a blow to the economy. In fact, the buildings were seen as white elephants -- poorly-designed money losers. They had wanted to demolish them, but the arguments were that it would have cost too much to remove the asbestos in a safe manner.

And I follow the evidence. That evidence has led me to believe advanced weaponry was used in New York that day.

Quote:
to have more funds allocated into war.
Indeed, the defense industry got $$$ and the military budget soared.

Quote:
HAHAHA jokers nowadays... US didn't gain anything from that attack for Christ's sake. That attack fueled war, which fueled the economic meltdown, which caused more hardships for the people...
Maybe the US people didn't, but the US Government certainly did. Let's do the rundown, shall we?

-There exists a neo-conservative think-tank called the Project for A New American Century (PNAC). Eighteen members of the PNAC organization urged Clinton to go to war with Iraq in 1998. When Bush came into power, 10 of those 18 became key members of his administration. This included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Lewis Libby.

-When Bush came into office, he had plans to invade Iraq. This would have been politically impossible without 9/11, so his plans indicate that he knew that something would happen to justify the war. Similarly, in July 2001 (Two months before 9/11), the Bush Administration scheduled the date they would invade Afghanistan as "October 2001" (One month after 9/11) -- though, the war there would have been politically impossible without 9/11. How did they know, two months before 9/11, that something would happen before October that would make the Afghanistan War politically possible?

-Three days after 9/11, CFR member Gary Hart (Who had told Condi Rice of an impending attack six days before 9/11) said that the attacks give Bush a chance to carry out a "new world order".

-The USA PATRIOT Act had 11,000 pages of legislation and was introduced 11 days after 9/11. It is impossible to write 11,000 pages of legislation in 11 days, so it had to have been pre-written. A month and a half later, this horrifying piece of legislation was passed.

-The attacks cleared the way for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the removal of a number of civil liberties. The US now ranks 17th in Freedom Of The Press, largely due to 9/11.

-Bush's approval rating soared after 9/11.

-PNAC (The think-tank that urged Clinton to invade Iraq in 1998) released a report called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" in September 2000. This report expressed hope for a "New Pearl Harbor", as it felt that such an event would boost the military budget.

-Donald Rumsfeld announced that the DOD couldn't track $2.3 trillion on September 10th, 2001. Normally, this would have caused an uproar, but it was completely forgotten after 9/11. Furthermore, the section of the Pentagon that was hit contained key budget information and the offices of bookkeepers, civilians, and accountants who would have been tasked with following the money. The comptroller for the Pentagon (and thus, the man at the top of the "Missing Trillions" scandal) was Dov S. Zakheim, a member of PNAC who had signed the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document (the one that expressed hope for a "New Pearl Harbor").

-Both the Iraq/Afghanistan wars were extremely beneficial to the energy lobby. Iraq, for oil reasons, and Afghanistan, for reasons relating to the pipeline.

-Dick Cheney (US Vice President on 9/11, Freemason, CFR member) was in control of the wargames on 9/11. He was also in a position to halt US fighter response (and US fighter response obviously was halted). Cheney was formerly the CEO of Halliburton, an oil/defense giant that made massive profits from 9/11. Halliburton was still paying Cheney well into the Bush-Cheney years.

Also, the simple fact is that the elite wanted a huge, massive, horrible event. They needed one to direct the flock in the direction they wanted them to move towards.

A list of quotes clearly shows that this is what they were hoping for:
http://www.takeoverworld.info/proterrorism.html

Quote:
generally, these theories are idiotic and is aimed only to breed distrust on the government.
That's a dangerously narrow-minded generalization.
__________________




It's Gon Rain!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7UBlZcZSE0

Truth about 9/11
The attacks were an 'inside job': http://killtown.911review.org/
The TV footage is fake: http://www.septemberclues.info/
The Military used hi-tech weapons to destroy the Towers: http://drjudywood.com/

Last edited by SimonCP; 10-15-2009 at 05:47 PM.
SimonCP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 05:50 PM   #115
Mal
Scotch
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 12,722
Thanked 10,818 Times in 3,844 Posts
Mal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

So wait, eye witnesses are unreliable, yet the phone calls were all "obviously faked" because the people making said calls got their facts wrong?
Mal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mal For This Useful Post:
Miburo (10-15-2009)
Old 10-15-2009, 06:03 PM   #116
Miburo
Deos Fortioribus Adesse
 
Miburo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,679 Times in 5,440 Posts
Miburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Also, most of the phone calls were from the on-board phones from what I understand...

And why would this guy respond to old shit instead of recent rebuttals?
Miburo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2009, 06:18 PM   #117
SimonCP
The Truthseeker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 25
Thanks: 2
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
SimonCP is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Quote:
Actually, it is your responsibility, since you're making the claim that they didn't hit the towers. Therefore those people and those planes must be somewhere. If I ask the media or the government what happened to the passengers on those planes then they'll say that they died in a plane crash. It's not the government's or the media's job to prove your claims. It's your job. That's how logic works.
If you can't see the way that a magician performs his magic trick, but you can see discrepancies, and thus, evidence that it is a trick, does that mean the magic trick is real? Of course not.

The media/government has presented a story, and by disputing it with evidence/questions, I am not required to fill in the blanks that they left me with.

If I was a relative of one of the passengers, I'd demand that the government/media tell me the truth. After all, if the airplane story is a lie, then it's they who will hold the answers, not the conspiracy theorists. The conspiracy theorists weren't in attendance when this was being planned.

Quote:
No, it isn't. First off, your analogy is flawed since it doesn't represent what you're comparing it to. Saying an orange is an apple is entirely different than saying a crater wasn't caused by a plane. If you showed me a video of a missile hitting the towers and the government is saying that the missile is a plane, then your analogy would be accurate. I didn't see any pictures like that though.
If I can provide evidence that the damage is clearly inconsistent with an airplane crash, then that is evidence that there wasn't an airplane crash. The simple fact is that airplanes don't vanish when crashing into fields or buildings. Airplanes don't crash while containing thousands of gallons of jet fuel and leave only a minor amount of smoke/heat damage. A huge tail section cannot hit a wall at 530 mph on it's sharp end and leave no mark. A lightweight aluminum plane cannot fly through a steel/concrete building as if it is flying through air. A Boeing 767-200 cannot fly at over 500 mph while at low altitude.

These impossibilities and others tear the "Airplane Story" that we've been told to shreds.

Quote:
Also, in logic, there are things called non sequiturs. It's when a conclusion doesn't follow the premises. Which is exactly what a lot of evidence consists of. Saying "people did not see planes," "there was no wreckage in the pictures that were taken," etc. simply do not directly support the conclusion: "There was no planes."
Have you ever been to an airport? Commercial airplanes are extremely loud, even when they're not flying that fast. They are also very massive. The eyewitnesses on the ground report hearing no sounds of an airplane approach and not seeing anything, even though they were looking up at the Towers. This would be impossible, had a commercial jetliner struck the building while traveling at top speed.

Furthermore, when massive wide shots showing the Pentagon, the entry hole, and the lawn in front of it show no airplane wreckage, then that is evidence that no jetliner crashed into the building. As said earlier, airplanes do not fly into buildings and 'poof'. This is even more true in the case of the Pennsylvania "crash", which happened in a field! All we had was an empty hole and some smoke/heat damage. Try finding another airplane crash like that (There's plenty of airplanes that have crashed into fields) -- you won't.

Quote:
I know this is tough to understand if you're not well versed in logic, since they sorta look like they're supporting it. But they're not. Here's an analogy that will help:

-I eat fish raw from a raging river
-I live in the woods
-I'm covered in thick hair
Therefore, I am a bear.

Looks like those premises support the conclusion, yeah? Guess what? They don't. I'm just a really manly dude, not a bear.
At the Pentagon:
-No damage above the upper floors where the 44ft tail section would have hit at 530 mph.
-No wreckage visible in the wide shots of the lawn.
-No disturbance to the grass on the lawn in front of the Pentagon.
-No serious fire damage on the inside of the first ring.
-An exit hole three rings down that could not have been caused by the plane.
-The entry hole is a square, despite the fact that the nose/fuselage is circular.

In this case, concluding that there was no plane would be quite reasonable.

Quote:
There are lots of possible conclusions that could follow those premises. Someone or multiple people might be wrong or have wrong information. If they weren't plane crashes, then what were they? Where are the planes? And where are the passengers? Actual proof please, not speculation based on people grasping for straws.
The photographs surely weren't wrong -- the camera has no bias or confusion. Unless they were fake, then the grass around the crater was unburnt, dirt inside the crater was unburnt, and there was a surprisingly small amount of smoke/heat damage in the crater, despite the fact that it was a jetliner with thousands of gallons of fuel still in it, even though small planes have crashed and caused much more heat/smoke damage.

So, then we have the photographer who said he didn't smell any jet fuel -- Surely, someone who has made a statement like that has smelled jet fuel before. And he didn't smell it there. That was his statement. Had he smelled it, he wouldn't have said that he didn't.

We are left with the EPA -- they conducted tests and found that there was absolutely no groundwater contamination. I seriously doubt that they missed gallons of jet fuel contaminants in the ground.

Quote:
If they weren't plane crashes, then what were they?
Susan McElwain saw a small white aircraft that had no wings. Her description matches that of an advanced drone aircraft.

Quote:
And I googled september clues and found a bunch of debunkings for it too. Should I check those out as well? Nah, they're probably bullshit. = /
The debunking, "September Clues -- Busted" (Made by a former voiceover the British government's BBC scare/propaganda network), has been heavily debunked on all issues. Here's an old debunking of it that I wrote:

Quote:
Busting Sept. Clues-Busted

They did not address nearly all of the points raised in the video, but instead attacked only a few of the points that they felt easiest to knock down. This is called straw man tactics. Finding a few weaknesses in your opponent's argument and inflating them to make them look as if they are the key points in the video.

In the introduction, Lawson promotes the 'many eyewitnesses' myth, which I have shown to be untrue above.

For what they did attack, they failed at attacking, however. First, they talk about how Simon Shack edited the testimony of Theresa Renaud. Shack has said that this was an innocent edit simply meant to shorten the video. For those who suspect that this is a cover story, stop and think. What value did the parts of her testimony that were cut out hold? Did they hurt his argument? I could not see how.

Lawson goes on to show that Renaud claims she saw a smaller plane, thus making her non-involved. If Lawson was orchestrating 9/11, would he really have Renaud, who was miles away, say she saw a large airplane hit the Towers?

He claims that 'Nose Out' is building debris, and not the actual nose, and that Simon Shack faded out the 'Nose in' to make it appear as if the 'Nose In' and 'Nose Out' were a microprecision match. Shack's response to this was a complete and quality analysis of the 'Nose In'/'Nose Out'. It can be found here: [link to ca.youtube.com]

Now, Shack also presents another video and claims that it shows that the 'Nose Out' is simply building debris exiting the other side of the Tower. In the WYNW video, do you think that it looks like building debris? The gray clouds were explained away as building debris, so what was this dark debris exiting the building? Also, he fails to consider the possibility that the video that makes the 'nose out' appear gray was damage control. He also fails to explain why there was no exit hole.

Shack's next attempt to debunk September Clues is by claiming that a plane is visible when the camera zooms out in the WNYW shot, claiming to debunk Shack's point that the plane is not in frame when it is supposed to be. This doesn't change, however, the fact that the plane is not in frame when it is supposed to be. This analysis will help you understand the problem with the WNYW zoom out: [link to ca.youtube.com]

"September Clues-Busted" is truly busted.

Anthony Lawson - the 10% truther
[link to forum.911movement.org]

Anthony Lawson's Nose Busted
[link to ca.youtube.com]

Anthony Lawson Schooled By Pilot
[link to www.youtube.com]

As for the other person that the perps at Truthaction brought up to attack NPT, Jim Hoffman, it just so happens that he works for MSRI, which is funded by the NSA and DOE.

Hoffman the spook
[link to www.911closeup.com]
So, yes, the debunking is BS. Check out the movie here:
http://septemberclues.info/

Quote:
No. I'm asking you since you're the one making claims here.
It was the government that made the "Airplane" claim in the first place. I'm using the available evidence to dispute that claim.

Quote:
You're saying we were lied to about what happened to these passengers. PROVE THAT. That's your job, don't pawn it off. Where are these passengers? They must be somewhere.
It's not my job. I can't explain how a magician does her/his magic tricks, but I know they aren't real and, if I am observant, I can see discrepancies.
__________________




It's Gon Rain!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7UBlZcZSE0

Truth about 9/11
The attacks were an 'inside job': http://killtown.911review.org/
The TV footage is fake: http://www.septemberclues.info/
The Military used hi-tech weapons to destroy the Towers: http://drjudywood.com/
SimonCP is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SimonCP For This Useful Post:
Azumi (10-19-2009)
Old 10-15-2009, 06:38 PM   #118
SimonCP
The Truthseeker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 25
Thanks: 2
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
SimonCP is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Quote:
So wait, eye witnesses are unreliable, yet the phone calls were all "obviously faked" because the people making said calls got their facts wrong?
I said that the main reason the phone calls have to be fake was because cell phone calls wouldn't work at that altitude (especially over a rural area like Pennsylvania). The discrepancies are just more evidence of that. And some of them, if you read the list, are hard-to-believe mistakes, and then ones that are more than someone simply getting their facts wrong.

Quote:
Also, most of the phone calls were from the on-board phones from what I understand...

And why would this guy respond to old shit instead of recent rebuttals?
I responded to the stuff that was recently posted by mewmew, and didn't notice yours until afterwards.

Also, most of the calls weren't from on-board phones.

Peter Hanson:

"The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the victim's father told the FBI his son made two calls, and both times the phone cut off. In the first call, the businessman said a stewardess had been stabbed. In the second call, the son said his plane was going down.
The man was identified as former Easton, Conn., resident Peter Hanson. A minister confirmed the cell phone call to his father, Lee Hanson, an official in Easton, a small town near Bridgeport."

http://www.sfgate.com/today/suspect.shtml

Renee May:

"Renee May, a flight attendant who a source said made a call on a cell phone from the hijacked American Airlines plane that crashed into the Pentagon, left behind a mother in Las Vegas."
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../16989631.html

Barbara Olson:

"Her husband said she called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77, which was en route from Washington Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles."
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson/

Mark Bingham:

"The story of Bingham's possible heroics became the subject of national television and newspaper reports this week when his mother, Alice Hoglan, a United Airlines flight attendant, told of how Bingham called her on his cell phone to say his plane had been hijacked."
http://www.post-gazette.com/headline...rsetnat3p3.asp

Sandy Bradshaw:

"We're all back here getting hot water together and getting ready to take over the plane," Bradshaw told her husband, Phil, in a cellular phone conversation that proved to be their last."
http://www.news-record.com/photo/tra...bradshaw21.htm

Marion Britton:

"She called longtime friend Fred Fiumano, from whom she had borrowed a cell phone."
http://www.post-gazette.com/headline...2gtenat4p4.asp

Tom Burnett:

"6:54 a.m. Fourth cell phone call to Tom to Deena"
http://www.tomburnettfoundation.org/...ranscript.html

Edward Felt:

"Apassenger on United Airlines Flight 93 called on his cell phone from a locked bathroom with a chilling message"
http://www.sfgate.com/today/plane.shtml

Jeremy Glick:

"As United Airlines Flight 93 entered its last desperate moments in the sky, passenger Jeremy Glick used a cell phone to tell his wife, Lyzbeth, of his impending death -- and pledged to go down fighting."
http://www.post-gazette.com/headline...rsetnat3p3.asp

CeeCee Lyles:

"Cee Cee Ross-Lyle, a flight attendant for United Airlines, pictured at left with her two children, Jerome and Jevon, perished when United Airlines Flight 93 crashed outside Pittsburgh Tuesday. Ross-Lyle of Fort Myers, Fla., called her husband, Fort Myers police officer Lorne Lyles, on a cell phone from the plane shortly before it went down."
http://election.cbsnews.com/stories/...in310935.shtml

Honor Elizabeth Wainio:

"Elizabeth Wainio, 27, was speaking to her stepmother in Maryland. Another passenger, she explains, had loaned her a cell phone and told her to call her family."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067652

Out of all of the calls, virtually all of them were officially done using cell phones -- an impossibility.
__________________




It's Gon Rain!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7UBlZcZSE0

Truth about 9/11
The attacks were an 'inside job': http://killtown.911review.org/
The TV footage is fake: http://www.septemberclues.info/
The Military used hi-tech weapons to destroy the Towers: http://drjudywood.com/

Last edited by SimonCP; 10-15-2009 at 06:46 PM.
SimonCP is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SimonCP For This Useful Post:
Azumi (10-19-2009)
Old 10-15-2009, 07:29 PM   #119
Mal
Scotch
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 12,722
Thanked 10,818 Times in 3,844 Posts
Mal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimonCP View Post
It's not my job. I can't explain how a magician does her/his magic tricks, but I know they aren't real and, if I am observant, I can see discrepancies.
How do you know they're not real? Believing that magician's tricks aren't real is inductive reasoning. You compare what you're seeing now to what you believe to be true about the world, and if it doesn't match you conclude there is a trick to it. However, what if there is something you don't know about the world? No matter how unlikely something may be, there is always a chance of it occurring.

Detectives accuse a certain man of murdering another. It is not up to that man to prove his innocence, it is up to the prosecution to prove his guilt. You make a claim that the government is guilty of something, the burden of proof is on you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimonCP View Post
I said that the main reason the phone calls have to be fake was because cell phone calls wouldn't work at that altitude (especially over a rural area like Pennsylvania). The discrepancies are just more evidence of that. And some of them, if you read the list, are hard-to-believe mistakes, and then ones that are more than someone simply getting their facts wrong.
I don't think you really understand what you're saying here. You're trying to convince me that a bunch of unreliable witnesses who are scared for their lives are less likely to make mistakes than a well-planned government cover-up? Seriously?

In all honesty, who's more likely to make a mistake? A calm, calculating government employee who is being paid to make sure all the loose ends are tied down; or the combination of a scared shitless airline passenger and their emotionally distressed loved one?

Think about it. The original witness perfectly capable of making a mistake not only in what they saw, but what they said. The person they said it to could have misheard, misremember or miscommunicated it to others. That's five separate occasions a mistake could be made.
Mal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mal For This Useful Post:
Miburo (10-15-2009)
Old 10-15-2009, 07:39 PM   #120
zer0systm
Antagonist
 
zer0systm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: West. Australia
Age: 25
Posts: 1,012
Thanks: 4,274
Thanked 8,057 Times in 2,875 Posts
zer0systm is just really nicezer0systm is just really nicezer0systm is just really nicezer0systm is just really nicezer0systm is just really nicezer0systm is just really nicezer0systm is just really nice
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

If I can get Reception on a mobile phone out in the middle of Western Australia right on the border of the desert then I could get reception on a flight over pennsylvania. You still haven't proven anything with these victim phone calls, all you've shown is that many people claimed there were 3 hijackers on board.

What happened to these people? how could the government ensure that they didn't come out if hiding 6 months / 4 years / 10 years later and sell their story for a shit load of money.

people where informing their family of the terrorists plans, it is highly likley that when the terrorists took control of the flight they made their intentions clear to the passengers of the plane.

also, the shape of the entry hole has nothing to do with the shape of the aircraft, throw a brick at a car window, the windscreen shatters, so why is it any different if a airliner traveling at the speeds it did ran into the side of a building with is just a glass steel and concrete structure?
__________________
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.
zer0systm is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to zer0systm For This Useful Post:
Miburo (10-15-2009)
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.